[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING PFAS CHEMICALS AND THEIR
RISKS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 6, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-5
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: http://www.govinfo.gov
http://www.oversight.house.gov or
http://www.docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-062 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Chairman
Carolyn B. Maloney, New York Jim Jordan, Ohio, Ranking Minority
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Member
Columbia Justin Amash, Michigan
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Mark Meadows, North Carolina
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Harley Rouda, California James Comer, Kentucky
Katie Hill, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Bob Gibbs, Ohio
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Peter Welch, Vermont Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Jackie Speier, California Chip Roy, Texas
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
Mark DeSaulnier, California Mark E. Green, Tennessee
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands W. Gregory Steube, Florida
Ro Khanna, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
David Rapallo, Staff Director
Britteny Jenkins, Subcommittee on Environment Staff Director
Joshua Zucker, Assistant Clerk
Christopher Hixon, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Environment
Harley Rouda, California, Chairman
Katie Hill, California James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Minority Member
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Paul Gosar, Arizona
Jackie Speier, California Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Jimmy Gomez, California Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 6, 2019.................................... 1
Witnesses
The Honorable Daniel T. Kildee, Member of Congress
Oral Statement............................................... 5
The Honorable Brian K. Fitzpatrick, Member of Congress
Oral Statement............................................... 7
Mr. David Ross, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 10
Ms. Maureen Sullivan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Environment, U.S. Department of Defense
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written opening statements and witnesses' written statements are
available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository:
https://docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
The documents entered into the record during this hearing are
listed below/available at: https://docs.house.gov.
* The Toxicology Profile of Perfluoroalkyls; submitted by Rep.
Ocasio-Cortez.
EXAMINING PFAS CHEMICALS AND THEIR RISKS
----------
Wednesday, March 6, 2019
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Reform
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Harley Rouda
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Rouda, Hill, Tlaib,
Krishnamoorthi, Ocasio-Cortez, Comer, Armstrong, and Jordan.
Also present: Representatives Khanna, Kildee, and
Fitzpatrick.
Mr. Rouda. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to
order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
This hearing is entitled, ``Examining PFAS Chemicals and
Their Risks.'' I now recognize myself for five minutes to give
an opening statement.
Today we will hold the first hearing of the Committee on
Oversight and Reform, Subcommittee on Environment. Our country
is at a crossroads. In fact, our planet is at a crossroads. The
overwhelming evidence clearly shows climate change and
environmental damage caused by human kind is no longer open to
debate, nor are the short-term and long-term consequences if we
fail to take immediate action.
For America, it is time to lead by example, just as we have
repeatedly done throughout our cherished history. America must
unleash its strength, innovation, and commitment to take on
these threats. For our children, our grandchildren, and
generations to come, I ask, I hope and pray that our elected
leaders will stand together in unison to win this fight. I'm
looking forward to working with Ranking Member Comer, as well
as the impressive members of the subcommittee, as a bipartisan
force to meet this responsibility.
This morning, the subcommittee will call attention to the
issue of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a class
of man-made chemicals often referred to as PFAS chemicals.
These chemicals are toxic and poisonous. PFAS chemicals are
known as forever chemicals. They do not dissolve naturally. So
they just accumulate, not only in the environment, but also in
the human body.
The information available is sufficiently alarming to
trigger immediate action from this administration. PFAS
chemicals can lead to serious, adverse health outcomes in
humans, including low fertility, birth defects, suppression of
the immune system, thyroid disease, and cancer.
PFAS chemicals are everywhere. They can be found in goods
that we use every day--nonstick cookware, waterproof clothing,
takeout containers, just to name a few.
PFAS chemicals have also infected our water supplies of
those who risk their lives for our country--our active
servicemembers and our veterans--as well as the water supplies
of communities around military bases. DOD's long history of
using these chemicals has led to serious water contamination
issues in and around military bases. In fact, according to the
DOD, 401 of the Department's military installations have known
of potential releases of PFAS chemicals.
We should all be angry that those who are willing to pay
the ultimate price for our country have to worry about exposure
to toxic chemicals. We know that Seal Beach, a military
community in my district, is one of many that has been
affected.
Two of our witnesses today, my colleagues, Representative
Kildee of Michigan and Representative Fitzpatrick of
Pennsylvania, helped create the bipartisan congressional task
force on PFAS to advocate for communities around the country
whose drinking water has been contaminated by PFAS, and I want
to thank them for their efforts on this issue. Representatives
Kildee and Fitzpatrick will share with us the stories of their
constituents who have been exposed to these chemicals and
express to us the urgency of the Federal Government to act now
to protect Americans from these toxic chemicals.
We also have here today Dave Ross from the Environmental
Protection Agency, Maureen Sullivan from the Department of
Defense.
The EPA has the authority to regulate PFAS chemicals, and
as we sit here today, it has yet to do so. In 2016, the EPA did
issue a nonbinding health advisory for two of the most toxic
types of PFAS chemicals, PFOS and PFOA, stating that the
concentration of these two chemicals in drinking water above 70
parts per trillion could be hazardous to human health.
However, last year, the Center for Disease Control and
Prevention recommended that exposure limits be set 10 and 6.7
times lower, respectively, from the EPA's suggested thresholds.
Last month, the EPA issued a PFAS Action Plan, announcing that
the agency would consider--consider--regulating PFAS chemicals,
with no indication of when the process might actually be
completed.
DOD has taken some steps to reduce exposure to PFAS
chemicals in and around military installations and to clean up
contamination. And private companies have made efforts to
phaseout PFAS chemicals in their production of consumer goods.
But it is not enough, and we have run out of time.
DOD has stated that any Federal effort to contain the
spread of PFAS must be led by the EPA. But to put it
charitably, it is unclear why the DOD feels justified in
passing the buck to the EPA.
DOD must do everything in its power to minimize exposure to
these chemicals in military communities, particularly in light
of evidence suggesting DOD's awareness of the toxicity of PFAS
chemicals since the early 1980's.
And although this hearing is focused mostly on PFAS
contamination around military bases, we cannot and must not
ignore the role of large corporations like 3M and DuPont, whose
knowledge of how harmful these chemicals are dates back to the
1970's.
We're holding this hearing to understand what has gone
wrong, why the executive branch isn't taking more serious
action to address the PFAS crisis, to ensure that the Federal
Government is transparent about contaminated sites so families
can protect themselves and their children, and what Federal
agencies, Congress, and the industry can do to minimize
exposure to PFAS.
In attendance today are Americans who grew up in and around
military bases who are suffering due to their exposure to these
toxic chemicals. Hope Grosse, who grew up next to the Naval Air
Warfare Center in Warminster, Pennsylvania, was first diagnosed
with Stage 4 cancer at the age of 25, just a few months after
her father died of cancer at the age of 52.
We also have people in attendance here today whose family
members are suffering due to their exposure to these toxic
chemicals. Mark Favors is a U.S. Army veteran who had 16 family
members--16 family members--diagnosed with cancer, all of whom
lived next to the Peterson Air Force Base in Fountain,
Colorado. Several of those family members are also veterans.
We also have other veterans, members of military families,
and Americans who have gotten sick from drinking water around
industrial sites in the hearing room today. The subcommittee
thanks each and every one of you for attending today. We want
to know what you have experienced.
These Americans, their families, and their communities can
no longer wait for the Federal Government to act.
The chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Comer of
Kentucky, for five minutes for an opening statement.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Rouda is available at: https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=109020.
]
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
joining us today for the first hearing of the Subcommittee on
the Environment. I look forward to serving as ranking member of
the subcommittee in the 116th Congress. I hope to conduct
oversight of our Federal policies and programs within the
subcommittee's jurisdiction to make sure our Federal agencies
are serving our constituents effectively and efficiently. I am
eager to work together to implement commonsense, reasonable
solutions to the challenges facing our country.
We need to ensure access to reliable and affordable sources
of energy that have proven capable of meeting our country's
needs. Our Federal policies must facilitate responsible use and
development of our valuable natural resources. Our businesses
back home need a regulatory climate that affords them an
opportunity to succeed without unreasonable burdens and without
being stifled by unnecessary costs.
I understand the importance of safeguarding our
environment, and vested with my ranking membership role on this
subcommittee, I look forward to examining Federal policies that
have impacted and will impact our Nation's important natural
resources.
In Kentucky's First District, lakes and rivers and the fish
and wildlife found throughout them are a crucial part of our
recreational and tourism economy. Additionally, farmers and
other contributors to Kentucky's vibrant agriculture industry
depend on access to clean soil and water. As a farmer myself, I
understand firsthand the importance of ensuring clean soil and
water for this livelihood, which is absolutely critical to the
well-being of our citizens, our food supply, and many other
industries.
I look forward to hearing more about our Federal agencies--
about how our Federal agencies are working together to protect
our environment and public health.
Today we have convened to learn more about a group of
synthetic chemicals referred to as PFAS, as they are found in a
number of consumer products and very persistent in the
environment, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Most people have been exposed to PFAS in their
lifetime.
While this is a very large group of chemicals, most
attention is focused on two of the more widely studied
chemicals in the family: PFOA and PFOS. These two chemicals are
no longer manufactured in the United States. However, as they
have been associated with certain adverse health effects,
concerns about their presence in the environment and drinking
water persist.
Last month, the EPA released its PFAS Action Plan.
According to then Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, this
plan is, quote, the most comprehensive cross-agency plan to
address an emerging chemical of concern ever undertaken,
unquote, by the agency.
Today we will learn more about this plan and the tools that
the EPA currently has at its disposal to address contamination.
In particular, I hope we can take a look at how the EPA can
work with communities and water systems where contamination may
be present.
As firefighting foam used by the Department of Defense is
another potential source for introducing PFOA and PFOS into the
environment, I look forward to getting an update from the
Department on their efforts to identify potentially
contaminated sites, ensure clean drinking water on their
installations, and work with surrounding communities concerned
about the impact of the Department's activities on their
drinking water and environment.
While the EPA's action plan outlines a number of ongoing
long-term actions, the Department of Defense previously
indicated they had been working to support efforts to develop
firefighting foams that do not contain PFOS or PFOA. Our
conversation needs to include a discussion of a current cleanup
strategy and any remediation activities that should be taking
place now.
Potential drinking water contamination is frightening for
any community. As such, we need to learn more about what the
EPA is doing to effectively communicate with states and
localities and provide information to the general public about
these substances and which areas might be affected.
I thank all of our panelists for joining us today. I look
forward to working with my colleagues, Representatives
Fitzpatrick and Kildee, on this issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Comer is available at:https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=109020.
]
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Ranking Member Comer.
Now I want to welcome our colleagues, Congressmen Kildee
from Michigan and Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania, and thank them
for testifying in today's hearing. This subcommittee commends
your efforts of working across the aisle to advocate the health
of all Americans.
At the conclusion of your statements, without objection,
your written statements will be made a part of the hearing
record. And also without objection, after your testimony,
Congressmen Kildee and Fitzpatrick will be permitted to join us
on the dais and question the witnesses.
The microphones are sensitive, so please speak directly
into them. Representative Kildee, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DANIEL T. KILDEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Chairman Rouda and Ranking Member
Comer, for inviting me to speak here today and for your
leadership on this issue addressing PFAS chemicals, which is a
public health crisis impacting literally hundreds of
communities across this country.
PFAS are a family of man-made chemicals that have been used
for decades on military bases and in consumer products. These
chemicals are very effective at being fire-, grease-, and
water-resistant and have been used in a wide range of products,
including firefighting foam, as was stated, Teflon, food
packaging, clothing. And although they are effective, studies
have shown that PFAS chemicals pose significant health issues
in people, including cancer, thyroid disease, pregnancy
complications.
There are two primary sources of PFAS chemicals. The first
includes industrial sites where consumer products are made. The
second, which I will focus my testimony on today, is in the use
of PFAS in firefighting foam at military installations across
the country.
I represent Oscoda, Michigan, a small, rural community.
It's home to the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base. At one time,
Wurtsmith was home to part of the Strategic Air Command B-52
fleet. And in fact, I remember as a kid traveling to that part
of what is now my district to see those planes come and go.
Now, unfortunately, according to the GAO, Wurtsmith is one of
those 401 military sites identified as having known of
potential release of PFAS after decades of use of firefighting
foam by the military.
Veterans who worked at Wurtsmith were certainly exposed to
PFAS, but nearby Oscoda residents were also affected, since
PFAS chemicals used on the base have leached into the nearby
groundwater and private drinking water wells.
Despite the Defense Department knowing about this PFAS
chemical contamination at Wurtsmith since 2012, the military
has failed to act quickly enough to stop contamination coming
from the former air force base. As a result, PFAS continues to
leach into the ground and surface water in Oscoda even today.
Oscoda is just one of many communities across the country
dealing with this public health crisis. Across America,
residents, veterans, and families are increasingly fearful of
exposure to PFAS chemicals. Each week--I'm sure Congressman
Fitzpatrick shares this with me--each week, Members of Congress
from around the country tell me about their constituents who
want greater action to protect public health from these
dangerous chemicals.
It's my view that the Defense Department in particular has
so far failed to act with the required urgency to address this
growing public health and environmental crisis. Congress and
the Defense Department have to work together to do more to
address PFAS chemical contamination, especially in those
communities that surround current and former military bases.
Last year, Congress did appropriate nearly $150 million to
clean up PFAS. Unfortunately, this represents only a fraction
of the resources that will be needed to clean up hundreds of
PFAS-contaminated sites, and yet the Defense Department has not
requested additional funds.
According to the GAO, of the 401 sites the military
identified as having PFAS chemicals, the Defense Department has
only acted at 32 of those to clean up contamination, less than
10 percent of the identified sites. Clearly, more has to be
done, and there must be greater urgency.
So I believe we have to take the following steps to begin
to properly address PFAS chemical contamination around the
country. First, we need to stop putting new PFAS chemicals into
our environment. On military bases and airports around the
country, firefighting foam containing PFAS is still regularly
used for training exercises. One way we can significantly
decrease PFAS from being introduced into the environment is to
limit the amount of new releases of chemicals, especially for
training exercises, until we find an effective alternative to
firefighting foam containing PFAS.
Next, we need to more fully understand the scope of this
problem. I introduced legislation--bipartisan legislation--with
Congressman Jack Bergman, along with Senator Debbie Stabenow,
to conduct a study to determine the scope of PFAS chemical
contamination across the country. Unless we know the true scope
of contamination, we are not in a position to appropriately
respond and expedite cleanup.
And, of course, we have to focus on cleanup. This month,
the EPA took a first step by releasing its long awaited PFAS
Action Plan, which says that the EPA will eventually regulate
PFOA and PFOS, two types of PFAS as hazardous substances.
By recognizing these chemicals as hazardous substances, the
EPA can then require polluters to clean up the contamination
that they cause. And so while this is a start, I have to admit,
I was quite disappointed to see the plan not specify a timeline
to begin taking meaningful action on cleanup or establishing a
national health standard for PFAS in drinking water. Working
with my colleague, Congressman Fitzpatrick, I've been pushing
the EPA to commit to a specific timeline for regulating these
dangerous chemicals.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we need to take care
of those veterans and families that have already been exposed
to PFAS chemicals, helping them get the healthcare and
resources that they certainly deserve. Last Congress, I
introduced the VET PFAS Act which would provide healthcare and
disability benefits to any servicemember with health conditions
caused by PFAS chemicals as already identified by past health
studies, and I plan on reintroducing this bill soon.
I'm also pleased that in 2017, Congress passed legislation,
that I supported, to conduct a new first-of-its-kind health
study on PFAS chemicals, which will give the public a much
greater understanding of the health risks associated with PFAS
exposure. This ongoing study will help make the case that we
need to do more to ensure that all people exposed to PFAS
chemicals get the healthcare and resources they need.
In this Congress, I worked with Congressman Fitzpatrick to
establish this bipartisan PFAS task force, where Republicans
and Democrats--yes, Republicans and Democrats--are working
together on an aggressive, urgent action plan on PFAS. This
task force now has more than 30 members on both sides of the
aisle from all over the country.
The dangers and prevalence of PFAS cannot be understated.
While some argue that the science has not evolved enough on
this issue or that the problem is too costly to clean up, I
simply do not accept those arguments. Inaction will not make
this public health crisis go away. Instead, it will only
continue to compound the scale and the cost of the cleanup in
the future.
In closing, the administration and Congress must work
together to fully address PFAS contamination and ensure that
Americans exposed to these chemicals, including our veterans
and families and people who live near these sites, have the
resources they need. Our constituents deserve nothing less.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Kildee is available at: https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=109020.
]
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Representative Kildee.
Representative Fitzpatrick.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
ranking member and to the subcommittee for your time this
morning. My name is Brian Fitzpatrick, representing
Pennsylvania's First congressional District.
For several years now, I've worked to address contamination
in our drinking water by toxic PFAS chemicals because I
believe, as does my friend and colleague, Dan Kildee, that
these chemicals represent one of the most widespread public
health crises we as a Nation currently face.
I want to thank the committee once again for holding this
hearing and exploring actions that can be taken to protect our
Nation's drinking water supply from these toxic chemicals. And
I also want to thank the committee for inviting us here today
to explore the negative effects that PFAS chemicals have on the
people across many districts across this country.
Mr. Chairman, nationally, 1.3 percent of our drinking water
contains more than the EPA's current lifetime health advisory
of 70 parts per trillion combined PFOA and PFOS. However,
toxicological profiles of these chemicals released by the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry suggests that
there are harmful levels up to 10 times lower than this
lifetime health advisory level, which would mean that tens of
millions of more Americans than we previously thought are
drinking water with harmful levels of these chemicals.
In 2017, I introduced legislation that was passed into law
as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act,
which required the Department of Defense to carry out a
nationwide five-year human health effects study of these
chemicals. While that study remains underway, there currently
exists a broad enough body of research to justify regulating
these chemicals as hazardous substances.
From exposure data collected internally by major PFAS
manufacturers 3M and DuPont, to the massive eight-year study
involving over 30,000 participants in the Ohio River Valley,
human exposure to PFAS has been linked to the following
negative effects: negative effects on developing baby in its
mother's womb, and children, including possible changes in
growth, learning, and behavior; decreased fertility and
interference with the body's natural hormones; increased
cholesterol levels; ulcerative colitis; thyroid disease;
testicular cancer; kidney cancer; and pregnancy-induced
hypertension. There is more than enough research to know that
we--to know that these chemicals are harmful at far lower
levels than the EPA is currently suggesting.
Some of the highest concentrations of PFAS in drinking
water have been found in the district both that myself and
Representative Kildee represent. This water contamination is
primarily associated with decades long use of aqueous film-
forming foam, or AFFF, firefighting foams, on or around
military installations across the country. AFFF firefighting
foams are designed to suppress certain classes of fires.
Unfortunately, the chemicals that make AFFF so effective at
extinguishing fires are also toxic PFAS chemicals that are
extremely persistent both in the environment and within the
human body.
A perfect example of how my constituents were impacted by
this issue is West Rockhill Township. In 1986, a team of
firefighters from the former Naval Air Station Willow Grove and
the Naval Air Development Center Warminster used the AFFF spray
trucks to assist fighting a massive tire fire. The tire fire
burned for 21 hours before it was finally brought under
control.
However, Mr. Chairman, over 30 years later, the water
supply for many households in this vicinity tests at some of
highest levels of PFOA and PFOS in the entire Nation. The
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection first
started sending notices to affected households in 2016. That
means that for over 30 years, my constituents were drinking
water and bathing their children in water poisoned by these
chemicals with no idea of the harm that they were being exposed
to, through no fault of their own.
Regulating PFAS effectively and responsibly will not be
easy. It is essential that we implement the regulatory steps
necessary to eliminate any health risk associated with these
chemicals in our drinking water. That is a priority.
However, there is a very real risk associated with
overregulating chemicals. Setting MCLs, maximum contaminant
levels, through the Safe Drinking Water Act, lower than the
necessary to ensure safety of our drinking water, would expose
thousands of municipal water authorities to cost-prohibitive
compliance requirements that would yield no benefit to the
communities they serve.
These compliance costs, which could total tens of billions
of dollars, would be covered by loans that would ultimately end
up getting paid off through increased rates charged to their
customers, many of whom were never exposed to any health risks
from PFAS.
It is my firm belief that the framework we have in place to
regulate these chemicals can work, if implemented the right
way. And it is our constitutional duty as Members of Congress
to commit to the oversight necessary to ensure that it does.
That is the primary intent of the congressional PFAS Task
Force, which I organized with my friend and colleague, Dan
Kildee of Michigan.
The EPA must designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous
substances under the SuperFund Act, and moreover, they must
establish MCLs under the Safe Drinking Water Act. With these
two regulatory actions, our constituents will be given the
protection they need after so many years of inaction.
I want to again thank the committee for their time and
consideration, and we look forward to answering any questions
the committee has.
I yield back.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Fitzpatrick is available
at:https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=109020 ]
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Representatives Fitzpatrick and
Kildee. Really appreciate you taking the time to come here,
and, more importantly, working in a bipartisan fashion to
address this very important issue. At this time, we'd like to
invite you to join us on the dais.
And if the next panel of witnesses will come forward to the
witness table.
Today we have the honorable Dave Ross, assistant
administrator from the EPA's Office of Water; and Maureen
Sullivan, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Environment.
Mr. Ross has been working on water issues for both state
government and the private sector for more than 20 years. Ms.
Sullivan has over 20 years of experience working on
environmental issues for the Department of Defense.
If the witnesses would please rise, I will begin by
swearing you in.
Do youswear or affirm that the testimony you're about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Mr. Rouda. Let the record show--please be seated. Let the
record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative.
The microphones are sensitive, so please speak directly
into them. Without objection, your witness statements will be a
part of the record.
And with that, Mr. Ross, you are now recognized to give an
oral presentation of your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DAVE ROSS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE
OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Ross. Good morning, Chairman Rouda, Ranking Member
Comer, and members of the subcommittee. I am Dave Ross, the
assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Water. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify today. More importantly, thank
you for your interest in PFAS and what we can collectively do
to address the growing public health concern associated with
the release of these chemicals into the environment.
Since my first day on the job, I have been advised by our
dedicated career professionals and scientists on all aspects of
the emerging PFAS problem, from understanding the potential
adverse health effects to the fate and transport in the
environment, to what we know and don't know about the
identification, treatment, and monitoring of these substances.
EPA scientists and technical staff have been amazing and
Administrator Wheeler and I greatly appreciate their expertise
and counsel.
As we've heard already today, PFAS are a class of synthetic
chemicals that have been widely used around the globe since the
1940's because of their stain-resistant, waterproof, and
nonstick properties. We use them when we floss our teeth, we
use them when we hike in the rain, and we use them to protect
public health and safety. They are very effective, for example,
in fighting fires.
Despite their everyday use, the body of science necessary
to fully understand and regulate these chemicals is not yet as
robust as it needs to be. Recognizing that, EPA is using and
developing cutting-edge research and moving forward with
regulatory mechanisms designed to protect human health and the
environment.
EPA's commitments on these fronts are outlined in the
agency's PFAS Action Plan, which was released on February 14.
The action plan was authored by a crew of professionals, and
the recommended actions are a product of their expertise and
counsel.
The action plan was also informed by extensive stakeholder
engagement that the agency formally initiated last year at our
national leadership summit. EPA held listening sessions in
multiple communities across the country and reviewed
approximately 120,000 written comments.
Despite what is commonly reported in the press, the views
on how to address PFAS are diverse and sometimes at odds. The
action plan commits EPA to take important steps that will
improve how we research, detect, monitor, and address PFAS
chemicals. Today, I would like to highlight five of the most
important areas of the action plan, but I encourage you all to
read the plan in its entirety.
So first, EPA is committed to following the MCL rulemaking
process for PFOA and PFOS as established by the Safe Drinking
Water Act. That process is designed to ensure public
participation, transparency, and the use of the best available
science and other technical information.
The agency has committed to making a proposed regulatory
determination for PFOA and PFOS, which is the next step in the
regulatory process, by the end of this year. EPA will also
evaluate a broader range of PFAS chemicals and whether or not
they should be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Second, EPA will continue our enforcement actions and will
clarify our cleanup strategies. EPA has initiated the
regulatory development process for designating PFOA and PFOS as
hazardous substances under CERCLA. EPA will also issue interim
groundwater cleanup recommendations for sites contaminated with
PFOA and PFOS in the very near future.
Third, EPA will expand its focus on monitoring and
understanding PFAS in the environment. For example, the agency
will propose to include PFAS in the next round of drinking
water monitoring under the unregulated contaminant monitoring
program. This action will improve EPA's understanding of the
frequency and concentration of PFAS occurrence in drinking
water by using newer methods that will detect more PFAS
chemicals at lower levels.
Fourth, EPA is expanding its research efforts and the
scientific foundation for addressing PFAS by developing new
analytical methods and toxicity assessments. Our goal is to
close the gap on the science as quickly as possible, especially
as it relates to emerging risks like GenX. We're also working
to develop new technologies and treatment options to remove
PFAS from drinking water.
Finally, we'll be working across the agency and the Federal
Government to develop a PFAS risk-communication toolbox that
includes materials that states, tribes, and local partners can
use to effectively communicate with the public. Additionally,
the agency remains steadfast in our commitment to support
states, tribes, and local communities to address PFAS
contamination where and when it has been identified.
Again, thank you for your opportunity to testify today. I
can assure you that the emerging PFAS exposure concern is a top
priority for the agency, and we share the subcommittee's
concern for communities across the United States that continue
to deal with these substances in the environment. I look
forward to answering any questions that you may have.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Ross is available at: https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=109020.
]
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Mr. Ross.
Without objection, the gentleman from California,
Congressman Ro Khanna, member of the full committee, shall be
permitted to join the subcommittee on the dais and recognized
for questioning of the witnesses.
With that, I will yield to Ms. Sullivan.
STATEMENT OF MAUREEN SULLIVAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR ENVIRONMENT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR SUSTAINMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Ms. Sullivan. Chairman Rouda, Ranking Member Comer, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am Maureen
Sullivan, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Environment. My portfolio includes policy and oversight of
DOD's programs to comply with--just checking--sorry, thank
you--to comply with environmental laws such as the Safe
Drinking Water Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act, CERCLA.
I want to thank Congress for your strong support for the
Department of Defense, our national security priorities, and
for the funding we need to protect our Nation. Ensuring the
health and safety of our servicemembers, the families living on
our installations, and the surrounding communities is one of
our top priorities. I also want to thank the subcommittee for
the opportunity to discuss PFAS. We believe DOD has been
leading the way to address these substances.
One commercial product that contains PFOS and PFOA is
aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF. This highly effective
firefighting foam has been used by DOD, airports, fire
departments, and the oil and gas industry. However, it only
accounts for approximately three to six percent of PFOS
production in the year 2000. And DOD is just one of the many
users.
Over the last two-plus years, DOD has committed substantial
resources and taken action to respond to concerns with PFOS and
PFOA. When the EPA issued the lifetime health advisories, or
LHAs, for PFOS and PFOA in May 2016, DOD acted quickly to
voluntarily test our 524 drinking water systems that serve
approximately 2 million people on our installations worldwide.
Twenty-four of these systems tested above EPA's LHA level, and
DOD has followed EPA recommendations to include providing
bottled water or additional treatment.
CERCLA provides a consistent approach across the Nation for
cleanup. The Defense Environmental Restoration Program statute
provides authorities to DOD to perform and fund actions and
requires that they be carried out in accordance with CERCLA.
The first step is to identify known or suspected releases. DOD
has identified 401 active and base realignment enclosure
installations with at least one area where there's a known or
suspected release of PFOS or PFOA.
The military departments then determine if there was
exposure through drinking water. If so, the priority was to
cutoff--has been to cutoff--human exposure where drinking water
exceeds EPA's lifetime health advisory. Now that exposure
pathway is broken, the military departments are prioritizing
sites for further actions using the long-standing CERCLA risk-
based process ``worst first.''
These known and suspected PFOS and PFOA release areas are
in various stages of assessment, investigation, and cleanup. As
DOD moves through the CERCLA process, we will work in
collaboration with the regulatory agencies and communities and
share information in an open and transparent manner.
To prevent further releases to groundwater, DOD issued a
policy in January 2016 requiring the military departments to
prevent uncontrolled land-based AFFF releases during
maintenance, testing, and training. The policy also required
the military departments to remove and properly dispose of
supplies of AFFF containing PFOS.
Currently, no fluorine-free version of AFFF meets the
military's stringent performance requirements. We have
solicited research projects to identify and test the
performance of fluorine-free AFFF. These efforts support DOD's
commitments to finding an AFFF alternative that meets critical
mission requirements, while protecting human health and the
environment, and will represent $10 million in research and
development funding.
In summary, DOD is taking actions to reduce the risks from
PFOS and PFOA. Our efforts reinforce DOD's commitments to meet
mission-critical requirements, while protecting human health
and the environment. The Department recognized that this is a
national problem involving a wide array of industries,
commercial applications, as well as many Federal and state
agencies. Therefore, it needs a nationwide solution.
We look forward to working with you as you move forward.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Sullivan is available at:
https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=109020.]
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Ms. Sullivan and Mr. Ross.
At this time, I'm going to defer my five minutes of
questioning and now recognize the distinguished member from
California, Ms. Hill.
Ms. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
guests.
This is a personal issue for me, as well as for my
district. I come from a district rooted in defense and service
where we have a large Active Duty military and veteran
population. But I was also born on an air force base which has
known contaminants of PFAS, and I grew up right next to one.
And, in fact, my dad was a firefighter with the Air Force who
used such chemicals for an extended period of time. So the
health effects are unknown as to how they're going to impact me
and my family. And for my constituents, these are people who
fight and have fought for this country and who have been
exposed to these chemicals, expect the EPA and the DOD to take
responsibility and work to regulate the harmful substances.
So I'm very concerned about the EPA's delayed response to
the PFAS health crisis. When Scott Pruitt served as the
administrator of the EPA he called the issue of PFAS chemicals
contaminating drinking water supplies a, quote, national
emergency. But we sit here today a year after these comments
were made by Mr. Pruitt, and the EPA has still not regulated
these chemicals.
So, Mr. Ross, do you believe that the PFAS health crisis is
a national emergency?
Mr. Ross. I do. Sorry about that. We do believe it is a
major national issue for EPA and our Federal partners to
address. This is an emerging issue, and we have been working it
aggressively. Historically over the agency has--has used as
TSCA authorities to take a couple hundred chemicals and
regulate them before getting into the market. We've worked with
the regulated industry to pull PFOA and PFOS voluntarily off
the market. We've developed health advisories, and we're
developing and working on our toxicity assessments for new
chemicals.
And so, yes, we agree it's a--it's a major issue, and we're
focused [on it] as one of our highest priorities of the agency.
Ms. Hill. So last month, the EPA announced its action plan,
which I appreciate, but the plan didn't call for action. The
EPA delayed the decision on setting the maximum contaminant
levels for PFOA and PFOS until the end of this year. So the
long awaited action plan disappointed many, including many in
the audience here today.
So, Mr. Ross, why did the EPA choose to delay another 10
months to make a decision regarding these chemicals?
Mr. Ross. The EPA did not choose to delay additional 10
months. What we heard from stakeholders and from a wide variety
of people in the country that this was a multifaceted,
complicated problem. It's not just simply about drinking water.
It's about market entry. It's about what we know and don't know
about the science. It's about what we can do under TSCA. It's
what we can do about cleanup standards. It's CERCLA. It's a
multifaceted problem that needs a holistic solution.
What we heard is we needed to go listen to the communities.
And so the agency in the past has been criticized for not
engaging with states and local communities, and not listening,
and writing in the dark. This agency, this administration,
committed to going, engaging with the communities, listening to
what the people need from EPA. And the action plan, if you take
a look at table I, the executive summary, specifically lists
about 20 to 25 actions that we heard stakeholders wanted the
agency to address. In the first column on the left it says what
we heard in the stakeholder engagement. And as you go to the
columns to the right, it's what are we going to do to address
those concerns.
So we took the time to listen, to engage, and so the action
plan has very specific commitments across about 20 to 25
issues. So we are taking action.
Ms. Hill. It's been--this is an issue that's personal for
me on a number of levels in terms of how influence happens in
politics. It's an issue that I ran on. And it's been reported
by Politico that Dave Dunlap, former Koch Industries official
who now works in the EPA's Office of Research and Development,
participated in, quote, at least nine PFAS meetings in Mr.
Dunlap's first six weeks on the job. This raises serious
questions regarding Mr. Dunlap's potential conflicts of
interest and any influence he may have had to delay regulations
of these chemicals.
So, Mr. Ross, were any lobbyists or industry
representatives involved in the decision to delay regulation of
these chemicals?
Mr. Ross. So when I was sworn in last January and took over
as the assistant administrator for the Office of Water, I came
up to speed very quickly with our career staff--Dr. Peter
Grevatt, Dr. Jennifer McLain--on the scope of the PFAS issue.
At the time, we had a task force running that was being staffed
by ORD, our scientists, and other members--career staff, and it
was a research-oriented task force. And we decided to transfer
leadership of the effort to a regulatory program, the Office of
Water, to take the lead.
So at that time, under the leadership of Administrator
Pruitt and the continued leadership of Administrator Wheeler, I
have been running point for the political team at EPA. I have
not taken a meeting with the regulated entities that you are
talking about.
Mr. Dunlap, just like every other political appointee in
their program offices, has participated, together with our
career, political--or our career deputies--in this overall
holistic effort. So I have been running point for the past
year.
Ms. Hill. Do you have any idea, based on his previous work
history, why Mr. Dunlap was not recused--or did not recuse
himself from working on this plan?
Mr. Rouda. Congresswoman Hill, your five minutes are up,
but please answer the question.
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Chairman.
I do not know the scope of his recusals. I know mine. And
so--I do know that all political appointees come in and work
with our ethics counsel very carefully. We fill out recusal
statements and we abide by them. And every time we have a
meeting or an external engagement, we try to--try to run
clearances. I don't know the scope of his personal recusals.
Ms. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Ross.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
And now I yield to Ranking Member Comer.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ross, we've heard a lot of discussion in the news about
the need for maximum containment level under the Safe Drinking
Water Act. Can you please elaborate a little more on the steps
and the process to set a maximum containment level, what is
required, and what does the agency need to do?
Mr. Ross. Yes, I'd be happy to. And that's actually the
program--Safe Drinking Water Act program in the Office of
Water. So Congress gave us very, very specific guidance as to
how to establish maximum contaminant levels, nationwide
drinking water regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
It's a robust process where we evaluate the best available
science. We make a determination about the health hazards, the
occurrence data, and whether or not, through national
regulation, we can do something about the issue. And then
we're--then we go through a very robust public engagement, go
through peer review, public science, work with our drinking
water advisory counsel, and engage through multiple steps with
the public.
It's very prescriptive. And so Congress gave us the
direction on how to establish an MCL, and we are beginning the
process, as I mentioned in our opening statement, to follow the
guidelines as established by Congress under the Safe Drinking
Water Act.
Mr. Comer. Right. You mentioned science. What role does
science play in this process, and what type of information does
EPA consider as part of this process?
Mr. Ross. I think science leads this process. Congress was
very specific in the Safe Drinking Water Act about the specific
science that we need to gather, very specific requirements
about peer-review science and using our drinking water advisory
committee. So we will--we will start with our health advisory
that the Obama Administration developed at the end of it--at
the end of its, you know, mid 2016.
We also gather other available science. The states are
working on their standards. ATSDR, as we've heard today, has
come out with minimum risk levels that are different than--than
the health advisories, and I'm happy to answer questions about
that. But science will--science plays the lead role. And we
have amazing toxicologists and scientists at EPA, and we rely
on them heavily. I am not a scientist, and so I need to rely on
them to tell me what I need to do to establish a standard.
Mr. Comer. OK. I understand some states have been setting
their own levels. Are there any differences in the process a
state must go through and the EPA must go through to set
enforceable levels of substances such as the PFOA and PFOS?
Mr. Ross. Yes, there are. So the Federal--the Federal
Government, it's sort of our--our federalism principles
embodied in many of our clean--in many of our environmental
statutes. EPA has the lead in establishing minimum requirements
on the Safe Drinking Water Act. We have 49 states and one tribe
that serve as the primary authority for implementing the
program. Only the state of Wyoming does not have a primary
delegation.
So the Federal Government has a role, but the states--and
that's one of the strengths of our system, is that if the
states implementing their individual state authorities need to
move quicker or have different programs, they have the ability
to do that, and we actively encourage and work with them to do
that. So there's a--there's a cooperative federalism principle
embodied in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Mr. Comer. My last question here. Once the EPA implements a
nationwide maximum containment level, what would the impacts be
for states and public water systems? And what kinds of actions
might they undertake to prepare to comply with the new levels?
Mr. Ross. Well, so traditionally the way an MCL is looked
at is, is you establish sampling requirements. And so in this
particular instance, you would establish, you know,
traditionally about quarterly sampling requirements. Each
individual community water system--and there are about 50-to
60,000 of them that we'd be looking at--would require a sample
on a quarterly basis. You round about 300 to 500 on a sampling
protocol on a quarterly basis. You rough-math that out. Over
the course of a year, you're looking at 60 to 100 million in
compliance costs. That's not--that's just at the monitoring
level.
Once--if you have a hit above our MCL, then we take a look
at imposing technology-based requirements, protect the public
health, to hit that standard. And so it's a--it's a monitoring,
reporting, and eventually a technology control to protect human
health and the environment.
Mr. Comer. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
Congresswoman Tlaib, you have five minutes for questions.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Chairman.
I want to first thank the leadership of Congressman Dan
Kildee, as well as Fitzpatrick, in working on such a critical
issue to our Nation.
According to reports, Mr. Chairman, big manufacturers
PFAS--that produce PFAS chemicals, including 3M and DuPont,
knew about the toxicity of PFAS chemicals for decades and did
nothing. I would like to bring our attention to a story--it's
very important to put a human face to such a huge issue. And
Emily Donovan, who is unfortunately not able to be with us
today--but I would like to submit her statement for the record,
Mr. Chairman--she lives in Wilmington, North Carolina, not far
from the chemical giant--I think it's called Chemours, if I'm--
which spun off of DuPont in 2015--and has discharged
dangerously high levels of toxic PFAS chemicals into Cape Fear
River. Her entire community has been affected.
Ms. Donovan's statement tells a very heartbreaking story,
and I want to highlight one of them, that of Tom Kennedy, a
long-time resident of Wilmington. Ms. Donovan states, quote, he
was diagnosed in December 2016 with stage II-B nongenetic
breast cancer. By 2017 of August he learned that cancer went to
his brain and bones and to stage IV terminal cancer. He does
chemotherapy every three weeks to stop the growth of his
cancer.
Tom is in his early forties. He has a wife and two
daughters. He is the primary source of income for his family,
and the cancer is robbing the Kennedy family of the best years
of their lives. Tom's eldest daughter is a teenager, and let's
keep in mind how many children are unwittingly exposed right
now to these chemicals throughout their lives and how many
children are now seeing their young parents suffer. And let's
also keep in mind that research suggests that even lower levels
of exposure for children and babies are toxic.
So, Mr. Ross, this subcommittee has learned that these big
corporations like 3M and DuPont knew about the health risks
associated with PFAS chemicals for decades, but did nothing to
stop the exposure. What has the EPA done to penalize, hold them
accountable, for poisoning the water supplies of Americans, and
what actions in the future does EPA plan to take?
Mr. Ross. So in the past, we've used, particularly for some
Chemours facilities in West Virginia and other places on the
East Coast, we've used both TSCA enforcement orders and Safe
Drinking Water Act imminent and substantial endangerment
orders. And so if you take a look at the action plan, one of
the concerns I had is if you just have a regulatory mechanism
to address the issue, you're talking about, you know,
Administrative Procedure Act, Safe Drinking Water Act.
And so what the action plan is focused on are short-term
solutions and our long-term strategies. The short-term
solutions focus on taking action where we have the most
critical issues, so working with the states, working with the
local communities, identify and providing the technical
assistance they need to identify and monitor, working with the
states on cleanup. If we have an imminent and substantial
endangerment, we have and we will use our enforcement
authorities under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
And so the short-term focus is helping the communities that
are affected now, while we grapple with the longer term
strategy on the regulatory side.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. And just because we're short on time, and
it's very critical that I ask this question, I represent a
very--a community that has been polluted--you know,
corporations have been polluting the air there, impacting the
water source for decades now. And one of the things that I
learned through the state government and being in the
legislature is that sometimes there's undue influence on
various bureaucrats or various officials. And one of the things
that kind of came out of your opening testimony, or answering
some of the questions, were--you said, I've heard from so-
called stakeholders.
Who are these stakeholders? And have you ever received any
communication or e-mail or a call or text from anyone in the
administration about this issue indirectly or directly
requesting you not to do or not to act?
Mr. Ross. Well, so the stakeholder engagement, we sent our
teams, including the director of the office for the drinking
water program office as part of the stakeholder engagement. We
went to about six or seven communities, held listening
sessions. We've worked with the state of Michigan, and
Michigan's doing some really valuable work in this area. Our
Region 5 office spends a lot of time----
Ms. Tlaib. Beyond government, what stakeholders?
Mr. Ross. Well, beyond government, so I--I have----
Ms. Tlaib. Because you said stakeholders and you said
you're part of a political team. I'm trying to understand what
that all means.
Mr. Ross. Stakeholders is all encompassing. Our local
communities, our state governments are affected. I've met
personally with some of the affected activists, including from
Michigan. And also our--our--our Federal partners. And so we go
through interagency review, when, for example, the action plan
was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget. We have
interagency review teams that take a look at that. And so
stakeholders is all of the above.
If you're asking if I have been lobbied personally by my
members of the regulated community, to my knowledge, I have not
taken a meeting on this. I do know my career staff learns from
everybody. And so if they want to learn about--from the
chemical manufacturers, they talk to them. They talk to the
affected communities. Because our job is to know as much as we
possibly can about this issue so we can guide our decision-
making.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
Mr. Ross, the second part of that question was also any
information or attempted e-mails or texts from the
administration regarding regulations in this area. Would you
like to supplement your answer to Member Tlaib on that issue?
Mr. Ross. Thanks, Chairman. So there's regular
communication between all branches of the Federal Government.
One of our jobs is to make sure the Federal Government's
coordinated. And so, you know, we have regular communication as
part of the interagency review process. I'm sure our career
teams, as they're submitting information and answering
questions, there's plenty of e-mail correspondence and
communication. That's the regular course of government
business. So the answer would be yes, there is communication.
Mr. Rouda. And any communication directly asking you not to
promulgate regulations in this area?
Mr. Ross. I am not aware of it, but we can double-check
that. As part of the interagency review process, people have
diverse viewpoints. That's part of the--that's part of the
system. So to the extent it's there, you know, again, I--I
haven't seen anything directly, but at the same time, that's--
everybody has diverse viewpoints on how to actually grapple
with these issues. That's, you know, this country is founded on
diversity of thought, and we want that diversity as we think
about the right course of action going forward.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
At this time, I'd like to recognize Member Armstrong for
five minutes of questioning.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you.
I suppose I should start, we have two Air Force bases in
North Dakota. So, Ms. Sullivan, do you have any update on PFOA
or PFOS contamination on any DOD facilities in North Dakota?
Ms. Sullivan. I tend to--honestly, sir, I'm a policy
person, so I look at overall. I defer to the military
departments onsite specific, but we can get you----
Mr. Armstrong. Yes, I fully--so thank you.
Ms. Sullivan [continuing]. detailed background on North
Dakota.
Mr. Armstrong. So when DOD learns of a water contamination
issue [it is] above the lifetime ban, right?
Ms. Sullivan. Correct.
Mr. Armstrong. What are the immediate steps that go into
place to protect the drinking water on the base?
Ms. Sullivan. Oh, on the base. We immediately, when--as
soon as EPA issued the lifetime health advisory, we directed
everywhere where we are the purveyor of drinking water
worldwide--there are 524 systems we operate--to immediately
test using EPA's test method, and if there was above the
lifetime health advisory, to immediately provide alternative
drinking water. So all of that occurred in the--over the summer
of 2016.
For those installations where we buy water from the local
community, we asked the military installations to work with the
local purveyor to see if they would voluntarily adopt EPA's
lifetime health advisory in the water that we're buying from
them for our installation. So by the end of the summer, that
summer of 2016, no one on a military base was drinking water
above the lifetime health advisory.
Mr. Armstrong. OK. And so when the EPA issued their action
plan last month, I mean, it's pursuing a hazardous-substance
designation. Do you think there's any steps the EPA can do, can
help you in any current cleanup efforts or future cleanup
efforts? I mean, we're talking about interagency coordination.
Ms. Sullivan. Right.
Mr. Armstrong. This is a pretty big one.
Ms. Sullivan. Yes. And we work closely with EPA. My
additional career staff works closely with Dave's career staff.
Actually, it's very interesting, because PFOS and PFOA are
considered what is called a hazardous substance--I'm sorry--a
pollutant or a contaminant, under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response--CERCLA, under CERCLA, we are already
in. So we have already begun the whole process. So designating
as a hazardous substance under CERCLA is actually not going to
make a difference in terms of our going out and investigating
sites and--and laying out the cleanup path. It will actually do
more to ensure that all of the sites across the Nation are also
looking to the degree that the Department of Defense is already
looking.
Mr. Armstrong. And I guess in my former life, before I got
involved in this line of work, I was a volunteer fireman. So I
think when we talk about firefighting, people think of actually
fighting fires, but significantly what you do as a fireman is
training. And so when--when the military conducts training
exercises, does it use AFFF products, or does it use--I mean
containing PF-----
Ms. Sullivan. So in January 2016, which was before EPA
issued their Lifetime Health Advisory, we actually instructed
people to stop using it in training and testing. They use, for
the most part, water, for that. And when they actually have to
use it to fight a fire, that they contain it to make sure that
it doesn't get into the groundwater. So we--we do not--we're
not requiring the use of it as part of testing and training and
maintenance in the day-to-day activities.
Mr. Armstrong. I guess then----
Ms. Sullivan. Except for shipboard.
Mr. Armstrong. And then I guess my follow-up question to
that, have you done any testing since, and has the Department
seen any reduction in these chemicals in either your water
supplies or the surrounding water supplies since you made that
training? Because I got to assume training was using the vast
majority of these chemicals as opposed to actually
firefighting. So----
Ms. Sullivan. Correct.
Mr. Armstrong [continuing]. by switching, have you seen a
reduction?
Ms. Sullivan. I have not tracked that information,
honestly, sir, because the groundwater situation, most of it is
so long-term that--that we're--this is an evolving issue. Right
now, we're trying to determine the extent of the presence in
the groundwater around our bases, how far it is, where it's
flowing, so we can design the right system to contain it, now
that we've cutoff human exposure through drinking water.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you. And then I think just one
question, and I think it's for actually both of you. You're
working with different agencies, and obviously bases exist all
over. How are we working with the Department of Agriculture to
make sure that we're not mitigating into surrounding farmland
or cropland?
Mr. Ross. Maureen, I can take that.
In fact, the Administrator--I've actually talked to USDA,
because there's a--there's a dairy situation out in New Mexico,
and so I talked to USDA within the last couple of weeks,
getting more information about that. The Administrator, just
last week, issued a memo directing the Office of Research and
Development as part of our--as part of our action plan. We have
a very robust research component to specifically take a look at
the cross section between groundwater contamination and
agriculture use. And so we'll be setting up meetings with USDA,
FDA, and our--and our research staff to work that very issue
the Administrator issued in that memo last week.
Ms. Sullivan. And I would add to that, that we believe that
this is a nationwide problem that does need a whole-of-
government solution. So we would encourage USDA and the Food
and Drug Administration to get engaged.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, both.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
Next, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you both for coming to testify with us today--or
to share your knowledge with the subcommittee.
I--like many of my colleagues here are very concerned about
the use of PFAS chemicals which, as you stated, are in
everything from firefighting foams to commercial household
products like nonstick pans and water-repellant clothing.
Serious health effects have been associated with these
chemicals. In fact, the Center for Disease Control issued a
report recently on this topic. I would like to enter into the
record a recent toxicology profile of PFAS chemicals completed
by the CDC's agency for toxic substances and disease registry.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Ross and Ms. Sullivan, are you both
familiar with this report?
Ms. Sullivan. Yes, I am.
Mr. Ross. Yes, I am.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And is it true that this agency report
acknowledges that epidemiological studies have provided
evidence that there is a link between PFAS chemicals and
thyroid disease?
Ms. Sullivan.
Ms. Sullivan. I'm not familiar with the details. I just
know the report exists, ma'am.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Sure.
Mr. Ross.
Mr. Ross. Yes. I am familiar with the end points in that
study, yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So it does?
Mr. Ross. Yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Ross, isn't it also true that this
report acknowledges that there is a suggestive link between
PFAS chemicals and, I quote, increased risk of decreased
fertility?
Mr. Ross. Yes. I believe that--I don't have the report in
front of me, but I do believe that that's in that report.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And is it true that this report also
found a suggestive link between PFAS chemicals and liver
damage?
Mr. Ross. There are liver affiliation end points with the
use of various PFAS chemicals.
Just to be clear, though, there are different chemicals
that have different end points. So, for example, our toxicology
work that we did last year with GenX and PFBS. One has an end
point and focused on liver. The other has an end point and
focused on kidney. So you have to be little bit careful about
the chemicals that you're talking about.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
And have you also seen information here with increased risk
of testicular and kidney cancers with PFOA?
Mr. Ross. I am not familiar, but that's--off the top of my
head. But I can get my scientist to answer that question for
you.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. And I'll make sure that this
report is submitted to the record.
I think it's important to acknowledge here that people are
suffering. And some of them are here in Washington with us
today. Hope Grosse, who grew up in Warminster, Pennsylvania,
next to the Naval Air Warfare Center, she drank and bathed in
the local water throughout her life.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter Ms. Grosse's
statement also into the record. Ms. Grosse was diagnosed with
stage IV cancer at the age of 25 years old. Ms. Grosse's father
died of cancer at 52 years of age, and her sister suffered from
ovarian cyst, lupus, fibromyalgia, and abdominal aneurysms. She
worries that she has unwittingly exposed her own children to
these toxic chemicals as well.
Scientists believe that there may be a link between PFAS
chemicals, exposure, and the kinds of diseases and illnesses
that Ms. Grosse and her family members have suffered.
Mr. Ross, do you believe that the EPA should further
regulate these chemicals?
Mr. Ross. Yes. And that's what we've stated in our action
plan. We have a robust plan to regulate these chemicals across
a wide variety of our programs.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
And I have one additional question. I know that, since you
all come from a policy perspective, it's hard to say which
airport or which naval base may have these chemicals or not.
I'm very concerned about my own constituents in my own
district. LaGuardia Airport, which is one of the busiest
airports in the country, is in my home district.
So one of my questions, and particularly when it comes to
the surrounding community, I want to make sure that my
constituents are safe or, if they have exposure to these
chemicals, that they would know.
Is there a place that they can go to? What documents could
they examine? Is there an agency or an individual that they can
ask for an assessment or that has already done an assessment
that they can figure out this information.
Mr. Ross. Yes. So a couple things. One, my office water
team is tracking wherever we have a site-specific issue across
the entire country. So we have a data base that we're building.
Our regional offices sort of run point on the specifics. New
York has got a very robust program working carefully up there
with three or four sites.
So the New York public health--I don't know the right
acronyms up there, but their Department of Environmental
Quality, their public health, are really great resources.
And so I would always encourage folks to go to local and
state first because they know their resources and their people
best. But the Federal Government's also tracking and developing
data bases.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK. Fabulous. Thank you very much.
Ms. Sullivan, do you have anything to add?
Ms. Sullivan. I would just say that ATSDR is doing exposure
assessments in West Hampton and in Orange County, New York. So
they'll be starting those exposure assessments in those two
communities in New York shortly.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I yield my time.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
Member Khanna.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for allowing me
to ask questions on the subcommittee. Thank you to the
witnesses for testifying.
I want to follow up on Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's excellent line
of questioning.
The GAO reported last September that DOD had identified 401
military sites with known or suspected PFAS.
Ms. Sullivan, you acknowledge in your testimony that
there's a growing body of evidence that highly fluorinated
chemicals are harmful.
Do you know how many active or closed military
installations are there today with any known or suspected
releases?
Ms. Sullivan. Yes, sir. We have confirmed 401 installations
within the United States have known or suspected releases, and
all are in various stages of investigation of the extent of
those releases and what the remedy would be.
Mr. Khanna. And did all of these sites test above the EPA's
health advisory of 70 parts per trillion?
Ms. Sullivan. No, sir. To divide this between drinking
water and groundwater. So we submitted a report to Congress in
2018 that listed all of the locations that--where it was tested
in the drinking water off the base as a result of our
contamination and laid out exactly where those systems were
where the drinking water tested above the lifetime health
advisory and what actions we've taken with the communities to
make sure that that drinking water is below--goes below 70. It
could be everything from providing bottled water to installing
home treatment systems or hooking up the host to the local
municipality and installing a system in the local municipality.
So that was our first priority in--when the lifetime health
advisory was to cutoff that exposure through the drinking
water. Now we're doing all the investigation into the
groundwater.
Mr. Khanna. But was it the 70 parts per trillion that was
the standard?
Ms. Sullivan. Yes. Yes, it was.
Mr. Khanna. And are you aware of the draft agency for toxic
substances and disease registry's report suggesting that the
threshold should actually be 7 to 10 times lower than the EPA's
advisory?
Ms. Sullivan. Yes. I'm aware of that report. It is in draft
right now. We are waiting for ATSDR to issue the final report.
Mr. Khanna. So do you have a guess on how many military
sites may have contamination at, let's say, 10 parts per
trillion as opposed to the 70 that was used?
Ms. Sullivan. I couldn't tell you, sir.
Mr. Khanna. It could be a lot more?
Ms. Sullivan. It could be more.
Mr. Khanna. Is there any plan to look at more sites under
the lower standard that many people recommend?
Ms. Sullivan. Well, generally, when we're investigating
groundwater, we use a factor below--a 10 times factor below.
So, right now, we're looking anywhere that it is 40 parts per
trillion and above in the groundwater to see what the situation
is. And we're monitoring the drinking water. In those
locations, we monitor the drinking water for a certain range to
make sure that we're not getting close to the 70.
Mr. Khanna. And Ms. Ocasio-Cortez spoke about this
heartbreaking story.
Do you know, Ms. Sullivan, how many active servicemembers,
veterans, or their families, have possibly been exposed to
these chemicals?
Ms. Sullivan. I'm sorry, sir. I don't. However, in
accordance with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019,
our health affairs staff is going to be conducting a health
study in creating an inventory of those servicemembers that
have been exposed through drinking water or occupational
exposure and work in coordination with the Veterans
Administration to share that information. So they're complying
with that requirement in the National Defense Authorization
Act.
Mr. Khanna. So that's the plan? To notify people who have--
--
Ms. Sullivan. To notify, to create a registry. But they are
sharing information now. Through our health program, they share
all the information that we've collected from EPA and for the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and make it
available to our medical community.
Mr. Khanna. I have one final question. I don't know if you
saw the report by Sharon Lerner in The Intercept that a Dupont
spinoff company tried to import PFAS waste from the Netherlands
to destroy it here. Of course, the Netherlands has strict
regulations for PFAS waste. We do not. Should we be importing
PFAS from other countries that are trying to get rid of them?
Ms. Sullivan. I would defer to Dave on that one.
Mr. Ross. I'm not familiar with the story, so I would have
to talk to our hazardous waste and our solid waste folks.
Mr. Khanna. In general, would you support not importing
PFAS into this country?
Mr. Ross. Well, as far as market entry, we use our toxics--
or our TSCA program as far as, you know, use in commerce. I'm
not an expert on our, kind of, waste management systems, so I
can't answer that question
Mr. Khanna. Thank you.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
I will now grant myself five minutes for questioning.
And, again, I want to thank the witnesses and everybody
here for coming.
I would like to ask anybody in the audience that has been
directly affected by PFAS or their family members or friends to
please stand up and stay standing for a moment.
I'd like everyone to look around and recognize that these
Americans are just a small fraction of Americans across our
country who have been affected by the toxicity of these
chemicals by simply drinking water. Let that sink in. Here in
the United States, by simply drinking water, that you could
have an impact along the lines that we have discussed here
today.
Thank you. Please be seated.
While we're all here recognizing that we have bipartisan
support in wanting to address this issue, the question is the
sense of urgency, the sense of urgency for those who were just
standing, the sense of urgency for their families, a sense of
urgency for those who have yet to be impacted by our failure to
move quickly in addressing this issue.
Mr. Ross, I appreciate your comments earlier about your
action plans. But in that statement, your opening statement,
you used the word ``we will do this, we will do that''
repeatedly.
I do not think ``will'' is what we want to hear. ``When''
is what we want to hear. When will we take action to address
these issues?
So I ask you, in that detailed plan, do you have specific
dates, milestones, that the EPA wants to accomplish under the
15 action items that you talked about with specific timelines
and milestones?
Mr. Ross. Yes, we do. And we are taking action. In the
local communities that are affected, we're working with the
states to provide point of use, point of entry, treatment
technology. Treatment technology exists right now for local
communities to put on. Granulated activated carbon, other
methods.
So where there are impacted communities, we're working with
those communities and working with the states to take action.
Of our 15 to 20, to get to your question, action, yes,
there are specific commitments in there. For example, we didn't
wait to do the action plan. We needed work done on the toxicity
assessments for GenX, PFBS. We've got another six in line.
We're working with our toxicologists to do high throughput tox
work on a group of about 150 chemicals to try to accelerate our
toxicology knowledge, for the MCL, which I think obviously is
an interest for you. We are committed to getting the proposed
regulatory determination out this year, and then we'll work
through that system that Congress has established for us as
expeditiously as we can in the----
Mr. Rouda. Any internal unreleased timelines that you have
that you would commit to releasing to the public?
Mr. Ross. No. I don't have an internal deadline. There are
multiple, multiple public statements. We're also coming out
with our reg agenda, which, as we're going through the
rulemaking process in OMB----
Mr. Rouda. One of the reasons I'm asking this question on
timeline is that there was indications that the White House
tried to suppress the release of toxicology profile for PFAS
chemicals completed by the agency for toxic substances and
disease registry. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Ross. I'm aware of the reports, yes.
Mr. Rouda. Are you aware of the email?
Mr. Ross. I'm aware of the email, yes. I've read about that
in the news.
Mr. Rouda. And so is it a public relations nightmare for
the White House if this information gets out?
Mr. Ross. I don't believe so. In fact, Administrator
Wheeler, one of his No. 1 priorities for the agency is risk
communication. This agency, and the Federal Government, needs
to do better on risk communication.
For example, we've talked about the ATSDR study that you're
just asking about. And there's confusion in the public, and
including today, about what those numbers mean versus EPA's
health advisory. They're different numbers.
Their scientists have a mission at the ATSDR to establish
screening levels below which there isn't a health risk
associated with a community. And then they take those screening
levels and then go do further investigation to figure out what
the real risk assessment is in those communities.
Our drinking water standards are focused on actual
consumptive use, our most sensitive populations drinking
contaminated water over their lifetime.
And so health advisories our are different than the ATSDR
number. That's a risk communication issue that we need to do
better collectively for the American public.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
Ms. Sullivan, I want to also turn to sense of urgency to
you.
Is there anything preventing the DOD from cleaning up all
of these sites and the contaminated soils immediately? Is there
any law preventing your from taking action?
Ms. Sullivan. Sir, we are moving out--we've been moving out
for almost three years very aggressively under CERCLA and under
our authorities under the Defense Environmental Restoration
Program. We're actively investigating sites. We've cutoff
exposure already through drinking water and installing remedies
across the Nation.
Mr. Rouda. How much did the DOD request in the 2019 budget
for cleanup?
Ms. Sullivan. Approximately $1.3 billion.
Mr. Rouda. And is that enough to do a complete cleanup of
all 401 sites?
Ms. Sullivan. Oh, sir, I estimate that the--and this is a
very, very rough back-of-the-envelope calculation that the
cleanup of PFAS and PFOA right now is going to add
approximately $2 billion to our existing liability of $27
billion. So I have multiple contaminants, including everything
from other hazardous substances to unexploded ordnance to
chemical weapons that I have to address. It's being part of the
entire cleanup program.
Mr. Rouda. So, in other words, woefully inadequate funding
to address this issue.
Ms. Sullivan. We have the funding to address what we can
physically do in the year.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
Ranking member, would you like to do a closing statement?
Mr. Comer. I just want to thank the witnesses for coming
here today and thank the bipartisan group of members trying to
come to a solution to the problem.
I look forward to working with this body to see that we can
fix the problem and do something for the families and the
citizens who have been negatively affected by this terrible
substance.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
I too would like to thank everyone for coming here to
testify today.
Our first goal here was to ensure that, when the regulatory
process at the EPA is completed, the EPA sets a minimum
contamination level, MCL that we've talked, that fully takes
into account the CDC's recommendations and accurately reflects
the significance of the PFAS health crisis.
Our second goal is to get the DOD to commit to taking
significant strides toward completing cleanup of contaminated
sites as well as providing more assistance to families living
in contaminated communities, including provisions for bottled
water, installation of water filtration systems, et cetera.
And I would also like to thank Member Armstrong for his
comments and service as a firefighter. I represent the Orange
County Professional Firefighters Association in my district and
part of the International Association of Firefighters. And
they're exposed to PFAS through installation on a regular
basis. And like all the members here, we want to do everything
we can to make sure that our first responders are not exposed
to these poisonous toxins.
To the ladies and gentlemen who are in audience here that
took the time to share with us their stories and their
commitment to addressing this issue, on behalf of the entire
committee, thank you so much for coming here.
And, finally, we just have a few housekeeping items, and
that is to make sure that these items are presented into the
record?
Good.
So, without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Rouda. And with that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]